Deep Learning-Based Dose Prediction for Automated, Individualized Quality Assurance of Head and Neck Radiation Therapy Plans
Authors:
Mary P. Gronberg,
Beth M. Beadle,
Adam S. Garden,
Heath Skinner,
Skylar Gay,
Tucker Netherton,
Wenhua Cao,
Carlos E. Cardenas,
Christine Chung,
David Fuentes,
Clifton D. Fuller,
Rebecca M. Howell,
Anuja Jhingran,
Tze Yee Lim,
Barbara Marquez,
Raymond Mumme,
Adenike M. Olanrewaju,
Christine B. Peterson,
Ivan Vazquez,
Thomas J. Whitaker,
Zachary Wooten,
Ming Yang,
Laurence E. Court
Abstract:
Purpose: This study aimed to use deep learning-based dose prediction to assess head and neck (HN) plan quality and identify suboptimal plans.
Methods: A total of 245 VMAT HN plans were created using RapidPlan knowledge-based planning (KBP). A subset of 112 high-quality plans was selected under the supervision of an HN radiation oncologist. We trained a 3D Dense Dilated U-Net architecture to pred…
▽ More
Purpose: This study aimed to use deep learning-based dose prediction to assess head and neck (HN) plan quality and identify suboptimal plans.
Methods: A total of 245 VMAT HN plans were created using RapidPlan knowledge-based planning (KBP). A subset of 112 high-quality plans was selected under the supervision of an HN radiation oncologist. We trained a 3D Dense Dilated U-Net architecture to predict 3-dimensional dose distributions using 3-fold cross-validation on 90 plans. Model inputs included CT images, target prescriptions, and contours for targets and organs at risk (OARs). The model's performance was assessed on the remaining 22 test plans. We then tested the application of the dose prediction model for automated review of plan quality. Dose distributions were predicted on 14 clinical plans. The predicted versus clinical OAR dose metrics were compared to flag OARs with suboptimal normal tissue sparing using a 2 Gy dose difference or 3% dose-volume threshold. OAR flags were compared to manual flags by 3 HN radiation oncologists.
Results: The predicted dose distributions were of comparable quality to the KBP plans. The differences between the predicted and KBP-planned D1%, D95%, and D99% across the targets were within -2.53%(SD=1.34%), -0.42%(SD=1.27%), and -0.12%(SD=1.97%), respectively, and the OAR mean and maximum doses were within -0.33Gy(SD=1.40Gy) and -0.96Gy(SD=2.08Gy). For the plan quality assessment study, radiation oncologists flagged 47 OARs for possible plan improvement. There was high interphysician variability; 83% of physician-flagged OARs were flagged by only one of 3 physicians. The comparative dose prediction model flagged 63 OARs, including 30 of 47 physician-flagged OARs.
Conclusion: Deep learning can predict high-quality dose distributions, which can be used as comparative dose distributions for automated, individualized assessment of HN plan quality.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2023; v1 submitted 28 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
Automation of Radiation Treatment Planning for Rectal Cancer
Authors:
Kai Huang,
Prajnan Das,
Adenike M. Olanrewaju,
Carlos Cardenas,
David Fuentes,
Lifei Zhang,
Donald Hancock,
Hannah Simonds,
Dong Joo Rhee,
Sam Beddar,
Tina Marie Briere,
Laurence Court
Abstract:
To develop an automated workflow for rectal cancer three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy treatment planning that combines deep-learning(DL) aperture predictions and forward-planning algorithms. We designed an algorithm to automate the clinical workflow for planning with field-in-field. DL models were trained, validated, and tested on 555 patients to automatically generate aperture shapes for pr…
▽ More
To develop an automated workflow for rectal cancer three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy treatment planning that combines deep-learning(DL) aperture predictions and forward-planning algorithms. We designed an algorithm to automate the clinical workflow for planning with field-in-field. DL models were trained, validated, and tested on 555 patients to automatically generate aperture shapes for primary and boost fields. Network inputs were digitally reconstructed radiography, gross tumor volume(GTV), and nodal GTV. A physician scored each aperture for 20 patients on a 5-point scale(>3 acceptable). A planning algorithm was then developed to create a homogeneous dose using a combination of wedges and subfields. The algorithm iteratively identifies a hotspot volume, creates a subfield, and optimizes beam weight all without user intervention. The algorithm was tested on 20 patients using clinical apertures with different settings, and the resulting plans(4 plans/patient) were scored by a physician. The end-to-end workflow was tested and scored by a physician on 39 patients using DL-generated apertures and planning algorithms. The predicted apertures had Dice scores of 0.95, 0.94, and 0.90 for posterior-anterior, laterals, and boost fields, respectively. 100%, 95%, and 87.5% of the posterior-anterior, laterals, and boost apertures were scored as clinically acceptable, respectively. Wedged and non-wedged plans were clinically acceptable for 85% and 50% of patients, respectively. The final plans hotspot dose percentage was reduced from 121%($\pm$ 14%) to 109%($\pm$ 5%) of prescription dose. The integrated end-to-end workflow of automatically generated apertures and optimized field-in-field planning gave clinically acceptable plans for 38/39(97%) of patients. We have successfully automated the clinical workflow for generating radiotherapy plans for rectal cancer for our institution.
△ Less
Submitted 18 July, 2022; v1 submitted 26 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
